5 ms·

From TFA > Meta and its Big Tech peers have fallen head over heels for nuclear power lately. Meta announced earlier this year that it was soliciting proposals

From TFA > Meta and its Big Tech peers have fallen head over heels for nuclear power lately. Meta announced earlier this year that it was soliciting proposals for new nuclear power plants that would generate between 1 and 4 gigawatts of power. Today, the company said it has received over 50 qualified submissions for sites in more than 20 states. I would like to see one of those submissions. Is Meta getting into the utilities business? Have they figured out how to store the waste yet? How to insure the power plant? How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies?

jajko 1y ago
Just look at history of their behavior in other areas for those answers. Its the same company, same people making same or similar decisions.
maeil 1y ago
The waste and costs will be socialized, the profits will be privatized.
- oldpersonintx2 1y ago
  [dead]
fastball 1y ago
Storing nuclear waste is a solved problem.
- Propelloni 1y ago
  How so?
  - fastball 1y ago
    https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...
preisschild 1y ago
> Have they figured out how to store the waste yet? Not the power plants problem, as per law the government is responsible for it and the utilities have to pay them. The govt is in breach of this by not opening Yucca Mountain. For contrast, in Finland the utilies are responsible for their waste and they have Onkalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... > How to insure the power plant Thats what insurance pools like the "American Nuclear Insurers" are for > How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies? German commercial nuclear power plants for example never received ANY subsidies and they still made a lot of money.
- Propelloni 1y ago
  Thank you for giving me an opportunity to research this stuff again. > Not the power plants problem, as per law the government is responsible for it and the utilities have to pay them. The govt is in breach of this by not opening Yucca Mountain. Strange, we assigned blame, yet the problem persists. What are they going to do with nuclear waste until the government acts? [1] I guess you wouldn't be willing to put a barrel or two into your garage, would you? > Thats what insurance pools like the "American Nuclear Insurers" are for I have heard of those. Let's check how much they disbursed for Fukushima. Apparently Fukushima was insured by the German Nuclear Reactor Insurance Association. And apparently the Association did pay out... nothing [2]. Furthermore, liability is often capped for those insurance associations, just like in the USA [3]. In the end the public will pay anyway. > German commercial nuclear power plants for example never received ANY subsidies and they still made a lot of money. The science service of the German Bundestag seems to disagree [4]. A more comprehensive study is here [5]. [1] And "act" could just mean to revoke the law and institute something like in Finland. Proper compensation of risk could certainly speed up finding suited locations. I'm all for it. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nuclear_Reactor_Insurance_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nuclear_Reactor_Insuran... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... [4] https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d883a81adcf2697313c7d/WD-5-090-21-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88... [5] https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-09_FOES_Kosten_Atomenergie.pdf https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-09_FOES_Kosten_Atome... EDIT: typos, grammar
rollcat 1y ago
Just to give everyone some perspective, my guesstimated peak power usage of common household appliances: an electric stove - 5kW; a fridge - 500W; washing machine - 500W; 55" TV - 120W; a laptop - 65W; gaming PC - 600W. If you'd run all of these simultaneously, that'd be around 7kW. So, in the most unrealistic scenario, a 1GW power plant could power 140.000 households. The grid may have to handle those kinds of peaks by using other sources of energy, but let's assume all we have is this one power plant. Let's pretend we don't need to handle peaks. Assuming average yearly power usage of 10kWh, average power draw could be around 1.15kW. In that scenario, a 1GW plant could power 870.000 houses.
- lwo32k 1y ago
  Too add more perspective They generate cash at a ridiculously insane rate (literally few bucks off everyone connected to the internet growing by 10-15 cents every quarter). What happens when you can produce cash faster than you can cultivate capacities to use it, and Wall St is constantly pushing you do something with it?

jajko 1y ago

Just look at history of their behavior in other areas for those answers. Its the same company, same people making same or similar decisions.

maeil 1y ago

The waste and costs will be socialized, the profits will be privatized.

oldpersonintx2 1y ago
[dead]

fastball 1y ago

Storing nuclear waste is a solved problem.

Propelloni 1y ago
How so?
- fastball 1y ago
  https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...

preisschild 1y ago

> Have they figured out how to store the waste yet? Not the power plants problem, as per law the government is responsible for it and the utilities have to pay them. The govt is in breach of this by not opening Yucca Mountain. For contrast, in Finland the utilies are responsible for their waste and they have Onkalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... > How to insure the power plant Thats what insurance pools like the "American Nuclear Insurers" are for > How to make a dime of nuclear power without relying on massive public subsidies? German commercial nuclear power plants for example never received ANY subsidies and they still made a lot of money.

Propelloni 1y ago
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to research this stuff again. > Not the power plants problem, as per law the government is responsible for it and the utilities have to pay them. The govt is in breach of this by not opening Yucca Mountain. Strange, we assigned blame, yet the problem persists. What are they going to do with nuclear waste until the government acts? [1] I guess you wouldn't be willing to put a barrel or two into your garage, would you? > Thats what insurance pools like the "American Nuclear Insurers" are for I have heard of those. Let's check how much they disbursed for Fukushima. Apparently Fukushima was insured by the German Nuclear Reactor Insurance Association. And apparently the Association did pay out... nothing [2]. Furthermore, liability is often capped for those insurance associations, just like in the USA [3]. In the end the public will pay anyway. > German commercial nuclear power plants for example never received ANY subsidies and they still made a lot of money. The science service of the German Bundestag seems to disagree [4]. A more comprehensive study is here [5]. [1] And "act" could just mean to revoke the law and institute something like in Finland. Proper compensation of risk could certainly speed up finding suited locations. I'm all for it. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nuclear_Reactor_Insurance_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nuclear_Reactor_Insuran... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... [4] https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d883a81adcf2697313c7d/WD-5-090-21-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88... [5] https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-09_FOES_Kosten_Atomenergie.pdf https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-09_FOES_Kosten_Atome... EDIT: typos, grammar

rollcat 1y ago

Just to give everyone some perspective, my guesstimated peak power usage of common household appliances: an electric stove - 5kW; a fridge - 500W; washing machine - 500W; 55" TV - 120W; a laptop - 65W; gaming PC - 600W. If you'd run all of these simultaneously, that'd be around 7kW. So, in the most unrealistic scenario, a 1GW power plant could power 140.000 households. The grid may have to handle those kinds of peaks by using other sources of energy, but let's assume all we have is this one power plant. Let's pretend we don't need to handle peaks. Assuming average yearly power usage of 10kWh, average power draw could be around 1.15kW. In that scenario, a 1GW plant could power 870.000 houses.

lwo32k 1y ago
Too add more perspective They generate cash at a ridiculously insane rate (literally few bucks off everyone connected to the internet growing by 10-15 cents every quarter). What happens when you can produce cash faster than you can cultivate capacities to use it, and Wall St is constantly pushing you do something with it?